Who votes for Hillary? If I was American I would have but it’s a marginal call. When the vote first happened I was unbelieving. And devastated that things have come to this – a vote for an immoral businessman turned TV star who exploits people. But when I examine the politics more clearly the call is extremely marginal, and it was only my clinging to left-wing politics that made me so unbelieving.

The first set of voters are the conditioned voters. Family and community votes Democrat/Republican, that’s the way it is. I don’t accept this but it happens. From my point of view Democrats and Republicans are just different shades of the same tools who work for the 1%. When in office they become mouthpieces (receptionists) of government, and as such simply carry out policies that the 1% feed it.

Within the context of elections most people believe there are serious differences between Democrats and Republicans, and people become vehement in their support for their own camp. And by 1%-intention cannot understand why sensible people vote for the opposition; a created division.

Liberals vote for Hillary. Liberals are now immersed in identity politics – anti-racism, anti-sexism and pro-LBGT and so being a black person, being a woman is a vote-winner. I might well vote for a woman as a form of affirmative action, but my history as an activist in the Thatcher era knows how much the 1% can exploit this type of identity politics. Having some personal history in Africa, being black does not make a person a good choice either when you consider the endless flow of puppet dictators there but as affirmative action I might well lean towards voting for a black person.

But if there were a candidate standing against the 1% such identity politics has very little meaning. However there have never been any 99%-candidates standing as party machinery ensures this does not happen. Look at what was unearthed after Hillary won the nomination over Bernie with a token sacrifice. This fits very clearly with Occupy analysis – neoliberal analysis; they would never allow an anti-1% candidate to stand especially against a candidate as vulnerable as Trump.

There were many Bernie supporters who vowed they would never vote Hillary. These were 99% who only wanted to fight the 1%, and Hillary was a 1%-puppet. My heart is with these Bernie supporters but very marginally I would have voted for Hillary.

Let’s examine Hillary’s puppetry a little. To me she is just typical mainstream Democrat. She is financed by Wall Street – this is not hidden. When describing her politics to the CFR she shows she is a 1%-puppet. But this is what I would expect. Obama is the same, look at what he did. Wars and drones. As a person I quite liked Obama, Michelle was also a charismatic person, but both represented liberalism within a 1%-system - neoliberalism. If Obama was President-for-Life globally we would not be better off, the 1% would continue to exploit and the 99% would suffer. There was sufficient within Obama’s practices to allow liberals to delude themselves that he was doing something for them; this is the free gift that deludes people into buying a more expensive car. This is the compassion that attracts me but I know it is only token compassion. However that token compassion is marginally better than voting Republican - marginally.

This level of liberal delusion has been going on at least since the end of the Second World War throughout the world, opportunists publicly offering liberal delusions whilst they do 1%-duty and feather their own nests.

Understanding Hillary’s 1%-puppetry also explains “Crooked Hillary”. After winning, in concession Trump described Hillary as a politician who had served her country. She had done exactly what all politicians have done in the past, but she had not served her country she had served the 1%. Was there something suspicious about her emails? Probably. Was there anything more suspicious about her e-mails than what other politicians did? I doubt it but I will never know. Was there anything suspicious about the Clinton foundation? Yes and No. These foundations have become a fundamental methodology of the 1% to further their own interests. Gates Walmart and however many others use their foundations to further the interests of the 1% outside government influence by establishing criteria for their “donations” which fit into the 1%-system. This is not new, it is expected practise, and just part of 1%-exploitation.

Both Democrats and Republicans do all this Hillary-crookedness, this is accepted behaviour by both sides of the 1%-puppets. But what Trump did is expose this 1%-puppetry for what it is, but targeted Hillary not because she was any worse but because she was the opposition and Trump broke the rules in how he criticised her. In my view it is this exposure that was significant in his winning. However this Trump-delusion has yet to be exposed. I have no doubts that he is a 1%-puppet but for the first time the populist right wing had a candidate who stood up for their interests; it is important in terms of unity to identify these delusions.

So who voted for Trump? First of all conditioned Republicans voted for Trump. Despite exposing the Republican candidates the Republican party worked with Trump to defeat the Democrats so Trump had the conditioned Republican vote.

But Trump also used fear to shamelessly appeal to populism. As a compassionate liberal, emotionally this made me totally anti-Trump, and it is hard for me to overcome this emotion. But be clear this appeal has legitimacy. What is this populism based on? Over the years employment has changed, and the money that has trickled down has been reduced. This has greatly affected the working-class where there are fewer jobs. What has been the cause of this loss of employment? The 1% increasing their accumulation of wealth. Of course the 1% do not admit this and blame others. There has been an increase in employment of people involved in identity politics, more women employed, more black people employed, more liberals employed in ensuring that these people are employed. More LBGT people employed. There has been an increase in jobs amongst those involved in identity politics, and white men have been losing jobs. These white men have a history of working within traditional communities, looking after traditional families, and having their community interests at heart. Michael Moore in Trumpland showed that these people are the “salt of the earth” – the forgotten voters, and when you look at these people you can see why 53% of white women voted for a man who denigrates women. They were voting for their communities and life-styles that liberalism has ignored for years/decades.

The question that remains to be answered is how much he will give his populist voters, and how much he will give his 1%-masters? And worse – how much will he take away from liberal funding? The trouble is we will never know because of the media, and that is now a huge problem.